Have you ever seen a Discovery channel show where a pack of hyenas is tearing at a fresh kill and one gets too close to another and those hyenas start viciously attacking each other, causing the rest of the hyenas to join in?

(TXMike, umpirebob71, BktBallRef, waltjp, daggo66, JRutledge)

That is the exact the feeling I came away with after reading one of the most disgusting and reprehensible postings, ever posted on officiating.com or any other football related forum - "The Snake Oil Salesman Is At It Again". For TXMike to think it is appropriate to assassinate the character of anyone involved in the game of football in a public forum, no matter his personal opinion, and watch with glee as his fellow hyenas pile on is a complete and absolute travesty of the officiating profession. Even worse, when fellow officials make mention of their displeasure with the tone and behavior of this "pack" and request a more civil discussion, those officials are met with the same vicious attacks as their target, a high school football coach - Kurt Bryan.

TXMike's use of this web site as a forum for his own "drivel", has done a complete disservice to every other official who believes in fairness & gentlemanly discussion of football. It is such a shameful posting I truly hope all officials boycott any discussion these participants enter into again. I also hope that anyone who knows who these officials are, does the right thing and reports them to their state association for permanent banishment. Its unfortunate to think that individuals this vengeful and vicious are officiating games with young adults, then at the same time spewing their hate on the Internet for any of these young adults to see. Are you too small minded to get it? The underage players and parents on coach Bryan's team can easily find this forum on Google and be reading this trash! Do you understand the fact that officials need to be neutral on any topic and your behavior of character assassination destroys the credibility of officials as a whole?

As someone who is deeply disturbed by TXMike's discussion and its impact of the reputation of officials, I printed all 35 pages of the reprehensible discussion and shared it with several friends over football yesterday. After a little research online, our thoughts are as follows to purposefully take on the other side of this pack's arguments:

1. It is overwhelming apparent by their own comments, the individuals who are the most bitter about the A-11 Offense on this discussion board have never seen it in person. Yet, they feel they have the expertise to pick to pieces, the conclusions of the individuals who have spent the time to go to Piedmont and learn what the A-11 is all about. Once again, the hyenas attack anyone who has a positive lean towards the A-11 Offense. In a follow up posting about his ESPN Article "Shock To The System", the author David Fleming says he "got to spend a week" with the coaches (ESPN Page 2 - Fleming: The innovative A-11 offense). Jere Longman of the New York Times visited Piedmont and said, "Whatever one thinks of the offense, it complies with the current statutes of the National Federation of State High School Associations. And it is as entertaining to watch as it is radical in design." Its interesting these professional sports writers for major publications traveled to Piedmont to see what everything is all about and came away with positive outlook on the A-11 Offense, yet they are mercilessly attacked as a "stupid sportswriter" by TxJim and those who have never made the effort themselves. These officials must subscribe to the theory that "to hate from afar" is more credible than to "see for yourself".

2. From TXMike: "At the most basic level, our purpose and charge is to prevent 1 team from cheating against another. When one of those teams unabashedly and deliberately cheats, it is going against our basic purpose, especially since there is little we can do to stop it. Folks can try to parse this and call it a "loophole" or call it "innovation" but an ethical coach would not deliberately cheat in this manner. It all comes down to what is the intent of the rule, and not even KB will argue that what he is doing is in accordnace with the intent." TXMike, you are so incredibly wrong in this flat out accusation that Kurt Bryan, a respected coach at one of the top academic high schools in Northern California, is "unethical" and "cheating", especially since the A-11 operates legally by rule in his state. This is a sad example of one person's blind hatred overflowing into perpetuity on the Internet, creating a black eye that reflects badly on all officials in America. Calling a coach a cheater. Uncouth. Shameful. And don't you dare come back and try to say that wasn't your "intent", we know your intent is to destroy the character of a high school coach at every opportunity possible.

4. 3Sport's continuous question to Coach Bryan of "What is the spirit and intent of the rule you are exploiting? The formation you are using is the SCRIMMAGE KICK formation and the numbering EXCEPTION to this rule." Quit belaboring the issue and get over it. You answered your own question. The A-11 operates within the rules of the scrimmage kick formation. If the A-11 is legal within the rule, Kurt Bryan does not have to answer "your" interjection of the "spirit and intent" into the equation. Your definition of "spirit and intent" is merely that and if you don't get the answer you want from him, you will keep attacking him. On another note you have so thoroughly undermined your own credibility with personal attacks, including the phrasing of your questions itself, with the "rule you are exploiting", why should anyone owe you an answer or bother to acknowledge your existence? Its almost laughable there is so much anger about this offense being run from those who have never seen it in person.

5. Easily officiated. The coach at Saddleback says most of the officials in LA who worked these games had a positive outlook after and there doesn't appear to be a single complaint from officials who have worked any of the 20 games Piedmont has played. The 50 year veteran and head of officials in their region says, "I think good high school officials can handle this offense". That pretty much says it all. Why would anyone question the perspective a man with 50 years experience in a major football region? There seems to be overwhelming evidence that the A-11 can be officiated properly in multiple states and after seeing it operate in person, you can come away with a positive attitude about it. It's looking like any contention that the A-11 cannot be officiated as rationale to ban this offense is quickly becoming a dead argument.

6. No respect for Kurt Bryan? Oh that's right, its because there is so much hatred of him making money on his book and videos and "pimping" an offense. And this doozie from (dago66), "My take on this (ESPN Article) is that sales are low and Kurt is trying to make a few bucks for Christmass so he managed to work his con game on a writer for ESPN." Or how about this one from asdf, "The outcry started when he tried to use the (forum) sites as a conduit to sell his product". Does anyone have an example of where Coach Bryan tried to sell his product on any forums? It seems like he has been making himself available to answer questions in the forums and is met with the type of behavior from anonymous individuals exuded in the Snake Oil Salesman discussion. This fact speak for itself and it does not line up favorably for the hyena pack. (Ajmc) puts it perfectly with his posting, "You are absolutely correct, I don't know the history, or motivation, of "this person", which is why I would find it reprehensible to defame and denigrate him. Even if I did know his history, and even his motivation, I hope I would have the class to limit my opinions to the subject matter at hand rather than slide down to angry personal attacks. I haven't read everything he has written on this subject, but I have read numerous attempts on his part to explain his position to a hostile audience, without resorting to lowering his offerings to the personal level of some of those expressed in opposition. Somehow, he seems to have managed to control his emotions to the point he tries to present a rational argument supporting his position."

7. If coaches make money on an offense do they lose all credibility? More importantly, does the question of whether coaches make and sell videos and playbooks even have a place in an "officials forum"? The fact this argument is even mentioned is pettty and completely unbecoming of officials and there is a serious malfunction on the part of those who continue to pile on about this topic. Did it ever occur to any of you that maybe there are a lot of coaches and officials interested in learning about this offense and therefore there is a need for an A-11 Installation Manual? If so many manuals have been sold (in your own mind), there is complete justification for creating these learning tools. Are you also so absolutely arrogant to think one of the top magazines in the football Industry, American Football Monthly, has no clue what they are doing by developing and distributing the A-11 materials? Have any of you counted how many coaches have created videos about what they do on the football field? Here's a link: (https://americanfootballmonthly.secu...e.php?site=AFM) Count up the number of coaches selling videos and try to tell us your argument isn't completely stupid. Should I hate the spin offense because coaches sell videos about it? Here's the bottom line. You don't know these people, but are willing to attack them for any reason whatsoever and once again, it only makes you look bad and tarnishes the image of us other officials not involved in your bitter crusade against the A-11.

8. More from the "is this appropriate for an officials discussion board", asdf's comment about Coach Bryan that "for the record.....I think he's a phony. (hee keeps proving this) And taking a page out of his "book", I have talked to plenty of coaches that think he's a phony as well." Once again more personal attacking with comments that make you look terribly stupid and referees look incredibly bad. If a coach goes 7-3 and 8-2 over two years running a new offense, helps his team compete against superior opponents, is basically the cover story for ESPN The magazine, has a prior ESPN Page 2 article, makes page 1 of the NY Times and is featured in the NY Times year of ideas and has also been featured on NPR 4 times, is this coach really a "phony". Does he have such power that he can, in the words of dago66, "work his con game on a writer for ESPN"? How about the fact that Riverside Brookfield won their league using the A-11? Saddleback Christian 10-0? Piedmont 8-2 with play-offs the last two years. Sounds like a true phony to me!

Well I'm sure the hyenas are sharpening their fangs to tear at me and this posting, but I highly suggest that if you have any balls whatsoever, you quit hiding behind your anonymity, post your name, address, phone number and e-mail address at the bottom of your posting for all to see. You have already lost so much credibility (for us all) that to reply with your anonymous screen name will only hurt your cause further. But you probably won't do that with the possibility of a lawsuit for libel hanging over your head (TXMike) - good point (newmdref)! We knew the "spirit of what you meant" below was "libel".

"Some of the comments made about the individuals who have come up with this offense are slanderous in nature and if you think they are not monitoring this any many other websites like this one your sadly mistaken, especially since so much is at stake for them. The title of your thread in its self makes a slanderous inference. I only bring up the slander issue because I had a family member who started and ran a national subscribed website, un-related to sports, and was shut down, sued and even subscribers were sued for comments similar in nature to the ones being made on here. Just letting people know to be careful about what you say about an individual on a public forum thats all."

------

Definition of Libel from Webster's Dictionary:

1 a: a written statement in which a plaintiff in certain courts sets forth the cause of action or the relief sought barchaic : a handbill especially attacking or defaming someone
2 a: a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1): a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2): defamation of a person by written or representational means (3): the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures (4): the act, tort, or crime of publishing such a libel

It is clear to me, that you have not been here very long. You have been here two posts at the time I am responding and you clearly have no idea the history of this discussion or the purpose of this site. This site is not for coaches to push their offense. This is an officiating site that discusses rules. We discuss rules in detail. We discuss all the time the validity of rules and what should be changed or not changed. The only difference in this discussion is that a person is trying to "sell" a product and keeps posting on this site and others to justify why the rule should allow what many feel is a violation of the basic principles of the rules.

You have made several comments like people have not officiated the offense which is not true. I have and there was nothing special about this offense that the rules should not change the rules to outlaw it. And being an official that works many sports, it is common that a loophole or something not intended by rules are changed to close those loopholes. This situation is not exception.

And if you do not like the opinions shared, then you need to find another site for your comments. This site certainly is not for you.

Peace

__________________
"When the phone does not ring, the assignor is calling."
--Black

Rutledge, You don't get it do you? Read the posting again point by point. There is no justification for any of the horrific character assassinations you participated in. You were probably pissed your user name was mentioned directly. This is not your exclusive domain to spread vile comments about others.

Rutledge, You don't get it do you? Read the posting again point by point. There is no justification for any of the horrific character assassinations you participated in. You were probably pissed your user name was mentioned directly. This is not your exclusive domain to spread vile comments about others.

What does character assassination have to do with someone coming here and trying to sell their offense?

No one told Kurt your anyone to use their real name. No one told them to come back repeatedly to make claims, then when those claims found holes in them (studies about safety, claims of approval by the NF which were not true). You obviously do not know what character assassination really is. Almost everything that was said in opposition to Kurt on this site came from claims he made that are not true. Then he used information to justify things that were also not proven.

If you do not like that, then Kurt should have never used his real name or kept coming back. Also similar claims have been made on other sites by Kurt and many people here have read all of them. And people have asked Kurt legitimate questions which he has not answered, but keeps coming back here. Kurt could have stayed away and left it alone. He chooses not to and that fuels the fire when he makes more "claims" on top of what was already said. No one put words in Kurt's "mouth" on this issue.

And Kurt also claimed he was not selling anything (several times) and it was discovered that was not true.

If that ticks you off, posting this is not going to change that, but highlight the flaws in your and Kurt's argument.

It would not surprise me if you are Kurt trying to use another name to show cover.

Peace

__________________
"When the phone does not ring, the assignor is calling."
--Black

Zebra 295,
Who put you in charge to lecture and chastise other individuals?

For over a year, the "coach" in question has gone on numerous officials discussion forums arguing for acceptance of his system and for what reason? He needs to wise up, accept what he has received from the forums' officials and take his product argument elsewhere. It gets old and aggravating especially when he is given responses that he doesn't like and yet refuses to answer some basic questions.

My suggestion to you would be to contact this "coach" and encourage him to take his discussion elsewhere as I'm sure that most are tired of hearing about it from him. If he or anyone else doesn't like the hyenas, then quit going around them.

Total BS Jaybird. There is no basis for any personal attacks like what happened in the Snake Oil discussion. My points were very clear. The basis of this posting comes from the disgusting behavior of everyone involved in that discussion. You should be a little more concerned with how bad they made you look.

I read through that discussion 20 times and Kurt Bryan was met with nothing but hostility. I've seen him attacked on Coach Huey and several other sites exactly as what happened in that discussion. I've seen flat out lies about the A-11 offense, such as ineligible players supposedly being illegally down field in videos etc. What do you think the result of a constant barrage of rumors about an offense based on 11 eligible players that constantly runs ineligibles by formation down field would be? Probably a quick ban. So why shouldn't he have joined these discussions to set the record straight?

A bigger question, why haven't any of you takes the opportunity to learn the nuts and bolts of the strategy to make yourselves better prepared in case you officiate this offense?

"I also hope that anyone who knows who these officials are, does the right thing and reports them to their state association for permanent banishment. Its unfortunate to think that individuals this vengeful and vicious are officiating games with young adults, then at the same time spewing their hate on the Internet for any of these young adults to see."

Once again Rutledge, Nothing you said above justifies your behavior. Ready to give up your name so we can forward over the 35 page pdf of the vile discussion you participated in to your supervisor? I'm sure he'll be interested in talking with you about how you behave towards FED coaches online.

I think I speak for many, if not the vast majority on here, in saying that we frankly don't give a rip about your assessment of TxMike, JRut, or any of the others you mentioned. This isn't your forum, so if you don't like what is said, LEAVE.

So if your point is to gain support to chastise those individuals, please give it up.

Total BS Jaybird. There is no basis for any personal attacks like what happened in the Snake Oil discussion. My points were very clear. The basis of this posting comes from the disgusting behavior of everyone involved in that discussion. You should be a little more concerned with how bad they made you look. No one has made ME look bad.

I read through that discussion 20 times and Kurt Bryan was met with nothing but hostility. I've seen him attacked on Coach Huey and several other sites exactly as what happened in that discussion. I've seen flat out lies about the A-11 offense, such as ineligible players supposedly being illegally down field in videos etc. What do you think the result of a constant barrage of rumors about an offense based on 11 eligible players that constantly runs ineligibles by formation down field would be? Quite often they do, Probably a quick ban. So why shouldn't he have joined these discussions to set the record straight?He should simply accept the answers he received and not get defensive because fallacies have been pointed out instead of using the same lame comeback he always does.

A bigger question, why haven't any of you takes the opportunity to learn the nuts and bolts of the strategy to make yourselves better prepared in case you officiate this offense?And just how do you know that we haven't? I have and would be prepared. Upon close video study, numerous IDF, IM, IS and IF fouls are evident.

Give up on your self-serving, self-righteous crusade. It served no purpose for this "coach" to ever bring this subject matter to this or any other officials forum. As for any belittling or demeaning references, that tends to happen when an individual will continue to argue his case even after he has received input and has angered those he inquired.

If you are an agent or ally of this person, I would suggest that you drop your campaign as you will not reform the masses and could subject yourself to some of the same ridicule.

I'm no rocket scientist, but I'm thinking that JRutledge is his real name. Before calling out others, why don't you tell us who you are Zebra295? KB has had no problem defending himself in the many discussions here. Why have you self annointed yourself as his savior? I'm pretty confident that you are not a football official. We have had much more heated discussions on this board than those involving KB and the A-11. I have not read one personal attack in that thread, yet people are so appalled by it. The issues have been attacked, but not the person. The fact that KB is admittedly trying to gain financially from this is a significant point that is subject to attack and discussion.

He came here to discuss the A-11. Some people had different views, which they are entitled to have! We have argued many rulings and many plays on this forum. This one has been no different. Many of us, myself included HAVE studied EXACTLY how to officiate this formation. It is my OPINION that there are many issues that make if difficult to officiate CORRECTLY according to the RULES. Most importantly I pointed out that a receiver can make himself ineligible by starting out in an ineligible position even if he shifts to an eligible position. This causes the officials to have to keep track of not only who IS eligible, but who IS NOT. Do you understand any of that?

7. If coaches make money on an offense do they lose all credibility? More importantly, does the question of whether coaches make and sell videos and playbooks even have a place in an "officials forum"? The fact this argument is even mentioned is pettty and completely unbecoming of officials and there is a serious malfunction on the part of those who continue to pile on about this topic. Did it ever occur to any of you that maybe there are a lot of coaches and officials interested in learning about this offense and therefore there is a need for an A-11 Installation Manual? If so many manuals have been sold (in your own mind), there is complete justification for creating these learning tools. Are you also so absolutely arrogant to think one of the top magazines in the football Industry, American Football Monthly, has no clue what they are doing by developing and distributing the A-11 materials? Have any of you counted how many coaches have created videos about what they do on the football field? Here's a link: (https://americanfootballmonthly.secu...e.php?site=AFM) Count up the number of coaches selling videos and try to tell us your argument isn't completely stupid. Should I hate the spin offense because coaches sell videos about it? Here's the bottom line. You don't know these people, but are willing to attack them for any reason whatsoever and once again, it only makes you look bad and tarnishes the image of us other officials not involved in your bitter crusade against the A-11.

8. More from the "is this appropriate for an officials discussion board", asdf's comment about Coach Bryan that "for the record.....I think he's a phony. (hee keeps proving this) And taking a page out of his "book", I have talked to plenty of coaches that think he's a phony as well." Once again more personal attacking with comments that make you look terribly stupid and referees look incredibly bad. If a coach goes 7-3 and 8-2 over two years running a new offense, helps his team compete against superior opponents, is basically the cover story for ESPN The magazine, has a prior ESPN Page 2 article, makes page 1 of the NY Times and is featured in the NY Times year of ideas and has also been featured on NPR 4 times, is this coach really a "phony". Does he have such power that he can, in the words of dago66, "work his con game on a writer for ESPN"? How about the fact that Riverside Brookfield won their league using the A-11? Saddleback Christian 10-0? Piedmont 8-2 with play-offs the last two years. Sounds like a true phony to me!

Well I'm sure the hyenas are sharpening their fangs to tear at me and this posting, but I highly suggest that if you have any balls whatsoever, you quit hiding behind your anonymity, post your name, address, phone number and e-mail address at the bottom of your posting for all to see. You have already lost so much credibility (for us all) that to reply with your anonymous screen name will only hurt your cause further. But you probably won't do that with the possibility of a lawsuit for libel hanging over your head (TXMike) - good point (newmdref)! We knew the "spirit of what you meant" below was "libel".

"Some of the comments made about the individuals who have come up with this offense are slanderous in nature and if you think they are not monitoring this any many other websites like this one your sadly mistaken, especially since so much is at stake for them. The title of your thread in its self makes a slanderous inference. I only bring up the slander issue because I had a family member who started and ran a national subscribed website, un-related to sports, and was shut down, sued and even subscribers were sued for comments similar in nature to the ones being made on here. Just letting people know to be careful about what you say about an individual on a public forum thats all."

------

Definition of Libel from Webster's Dictionary:

1 a: a written statement in which a plaintiff in certain courts sets forth the cause of action or the relief sought barchaic : a handbill especially attacking or defaming someone
2 a: a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1): a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2): defamation of a person by written or representational means (3): the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures (4): the act, tort, or crime of publishing such a libel

You post your name, address, etc. first. Many on this site know who Rut is and know who I am. Who are you? Not that I really care, but those who live in glass houses.

Oh, and I couldn't get through all of your multi-post diatribe. Brevity always wins out over diarrhea of the keyboard.